>Let me also ask, if you dial down Level of Detail Radius to>minimum, does this help and does this reduce the file>accesses?>I'm using the Horizon 1M/pixel photographic scenery for the UK and changing the LOD radius makes no difference to the disk accesses. The loading times for a flight are:Intel Xeon 3.02GHz, 1GB RAM, XP Pro 17 minutesAMD x2 4800+, 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM Xp Pro 8 minutes 25 secondsAMD x2 4800+, 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM 64bit Vista 1 minute 25 secondsThe latter two are from a dual boot on the same machine with separate drives for the OS, FSX and Scenery.

>Regarding the LOD radius I'll need to give this a try. I>thought it affected only the very close up textures. Is that>not the case? With RTM, max LOD at 4.5 was mandatory to get>satisfactory close up textures. Haven't tried to see what>happens in SP1.Here are my test with FS9 texture and LOD_RADIUS 1.5 3.0 and 4.5, so it has only 7 MipLevel and therefore the 2 highest level where shown in red. The diameter of the yellow Level with LOD_RADIUS 4.5 where about 26 nm near EDDV.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173287.jpg

This is really interesting...if I understand it correctly.Many of us are trying to get the area of highest detail enlarged, so that the high detail tiles do not swap right in front of our cockpit, but if that is the orange area in your example, the difference between LOD 3.0 and 4.5 is mainly in expanding the overall area, thus putting more load on the processor without adding much to the inner area which we are trying to improve.Is there no way to expand the inner circle without also expanding everything else at the same time?

Hi GHD,AMD x2 4800+, 2.4GHz, 2GB RAM Xp Home (SP1)Horizon VFR Photographic Scenery: I've just checked my loading time over Snowdonia NP = 2 mins 40 secsNo blurries close by, very few stutters (never seems to be with photographic scenery for some reason), LOD Radius = Large (4.5) and frame rate holds at 30.http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/Cruachan47/SnowdoniaNPMike

With the LOD_RADIUS there is no way and I think there is no other way to do this.

Max LOD radius means we go out 4.5 tiles and load scenery textures.If the 3rd party add-on is authored at the right LOD, then Japan and the UK are indeed only 4.5 tiles away. Same with Friday Harbor and Las Vegas, which is another case I have seen mentioned.So I was wondering if we change to a lower LOD, does the loading range drop and the file accesses decrease.Depending on how the 3rd party authored their LOD pyramid, and if they broke out the scenery into lots of small files, there can be a lot of file accesses. It would then take many file accesses to generate the terrain texture. If this then blows the OS file cache, that can hurt. And with the threading in SP1, that could cause blocking.So this can be very dependant on how a specific package is authored.

Yes, there are definately many many small files. How it is authored? I wouldn't want to speculate and give wrong info. Send me a private message and maybe I can organise a way for you to find out and test.I will test as soon as possible with lower LOD and give you an update.However, why does it work fine in RTM and not in SP1? What has changed in SP1? If one looks at the issue from an outsider standpoint that means something in SP1 is broken and that we have a regression... (I agree that's a quick conclusion, sorry :-)... and it would be nice if the "something" were fixed.Rgds,JCMK

Phil, I just run a test with LOD to medium but that hasn't solved the blurries.

All that would do is, potentially, cut down the file loads.

>Saying don't install add-ons to FSX is like saying don't buy>FSX.Sorry but I don't see where he allegedly said this. I think you totally misunderstood his post. Phil was specifically addressing SP1 installation only.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

So this particular 3rd party scenery is authored with many small files, instead of larger ones. This is a choice a developer makes.Lots changed in SP1. You all know that. Lets not be simplistic.Here is a case where something worked and now doesnt work as well. I have seen a report that by reducing the amount of scenery of this type, the issue is resolved. That indicates that the file system loads are starving the terrain threads.But, given it doesnt happen with the default scenery, and doesnt happen with all 3rd party scenery content, its not simply "broken" in SP1. That is indeed a "quick conclusion" as well as a wrong one. This case is quite a bit more complicated than that. It involves a certain type of add-on, authored a certain type of way.In any program as complicated as FSX, it does happen that we find an edge case. As I said,we are investigating. It could be this issue can be addressed by an update from the 3rd party. It could be that it requires an update from us. Thats not a commitment, just a recognition of where we are in the process. Can everyone confirm their blurries are with photo-scenery? Does everyone have blurries that "catch up" eventually?That would have been useful data to have at the beginning of the thread, btw.

>Actually, this is when it looks good. Granted, I only use 2m>textures and this is from 3000 ft AGL... this is not, I>repeat: not "the Blurries".Bert, I would not fly a sim with a display as "blurry" as that! My system at its worst, looked better than the shot you posted!Ray Keattch

>I said that I would report back after attempting the fix as>prescribed above; >>remove FSX>>delete FSX directories>>Install FSX>>Install SP1>>Run FSX to get a CFG file>>Quit FSX>>DELETE FSX.CFG>>Restart FSX but no changes to FSX.CFG>>Change in game settings and see what you get>>My results are that I am getting higher fsp but nothing to>write home about but can keep it locked at 25. But, the>dreaded blurries are still there. As I fly along the tiles>pop into focus underneath me but anything in the distance is>not sharp.>>Maybe our definition of blurries is different. I do expect>the scenery in the mid distance to be in focus, and its not. >Yet when I fly in fs9 everything is sharp.Everything is sharp for me to the far distance. If I get any blurries at all, I can't use the sim!>I have pretty much had it for messing around with fsx and>trying to get this thing to work properly. What a bloody>shame. It should not be this way.No, it shouldn't. However, after a week of playing around, my display just clicked into place.>My specs are:>AMD Athlon 4200+ 64 X2 dual core; 2 gigs RAM; Radeon X1600>512Mb PCI Express; dedicated 300gig SATA HD for flightsim.>>Something isn't right in my opinion. While this isn't the>worlds top machine it is no slouch either.Similar spec to mineAthlon 4600+ 64 Duel core2 gigs ramTwo Nvidia 7800 GTI (SLI performance mode for FSX)Ray Keattch>Oh fuddle.

>While I keep throwing in the towel, I pick it up again and>again trying desperately to get my FSX to run like I think it>should.>>Here are some screenshots of a flight over KSEA, I think that>these are blurries, is this what others are experiencing, I am>wondering if i am expecting too much here and there is>supposed to be some lack of clarity in the distance.I would cosider your display to be blurry - not a bad as the shot from Bert, but blurry in the distance.>I haven't yet seen a screenshot that doesn't have some>blurryness. Please someone who claims to have NO BLURRIES,>provide me with some similar shots to show me what is>possible.I'll do one Friday to see what you think - I am doing 14 hour shifts and too tired until my day off!Ray Keattch

>Can everyone confirm their blurries are with photo-scenery?>Does everyone have blurries that "catch up" eventually?My blurries are with stock textures and catch up within several seconds if I pause.